Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top. The trouble is, they also need to make a profit. Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.

Nikon is building a giant plant in Laos to open this fall, apparently hoping to ultimately get their costs down. They also (I think) understand that the warmer weather means more floods and they need to have plan(t) B. I hope it works out for them, lower prices are certainly welcome, and Canon is in the drivers seat right now as far as cost of production is concerned. They drop prices and still make a nice profit.

Great analysis. One reason Nikon has problems with profits is they tried too hard to displace Canon as market leader. But Nikon must also improve their quality control. Obviously, their standard has taken quite a hit recently with the D800 left side misfocus and D600 sensor debris problems...

I think Nikon has far worse issues than a few tech bugs. Their last generation of DSLR's all robbed each other's sales and divided their own markets...a sure sign of a panic with their pro cameras. The D700 totally divided the D3 sales. Who would buy a D3 after a D700 was launched? Practically the same specs for half the size and cost...lol. Nikon was so desperate to grab market share they lost their long term perspective. When the next batch of cameras came out, the D4 wasn't properly shaken down and has had loads of tech issues. The D800 isn't the same genre/spec division of the D700 which has really peaved off a lot of Nikon shooters. Many Pro photographers (whom Nikon were courting) ditch Canon, sold a lot of kit and re-invested in Nikon glass...only to find that the next round Nikon wanted them to buy D4's at a huge price increase over the D800. Most of those pros looked at the D800 and considered it to have inappropriate specs. The very reason for them to consider Nikon (low mp, hish iso and the best AF in the business) were no longer valid and many have quietly gone back to Canon. While the D800 is a very innovative camera, it's not right for the buying market it's in. Nikon needed a true D700 replacement and hasn't delivered. The 5DIII is easily the most versatile DSLR ever made and the new ex 600 rt flash is simply the best flash gun ever made. Nikon have seriously upset their user base and handed the game back to Canon. If I was a Canon to Nikon switcher...I certainly wouldn't trust Nikon again.

Going back to this threads origins...I still don't see the need for a 40+ mp DSLR. With the current 22mp sensors, I can blow up to A1 size easily and still have a very low noise threshold. Why would I trade these features for more mush MP? There's not many lenses which can resolve that level of detail. I just worry that this camera is being developed by forum pressure and the desire for brand bragging rights. I seriously doubt that it'll sell well, lets face it, the current 1Dx aint cheap and it's not going to be cheaper than that camera!

Nikon suffered from that until some younger blood finally got to the top. The trouble is, they also need to make a profit. Innovative ideas do not keep a company in business if they don't turn a profit.

Nikon is building a giant plant in Laos to open this fall, apparently hoping to ultimately get their costs down. They also (I think) understand that the warmer weather means more floods and they need to have plan(t) B. I hope it works out for them, lower prices are certainly welcome, and Canon is in the drivers seat right now as far as cost of production is concerned. They drop prices and still make a nice profit.

Great analysis. One reason Nikon has problems with profits is they tried too hard to displace Canon as market leader. But Nikon must also improve their quality control. Obviously, their standard has taken quite a hit recently with the D800 left side misfocus and D600 sensor debris problems...

I think Nikon has far worse issues than a few tech bugs. Their last generation of DSLR's all robbed each other's sales and divided their own markets...a sure sign of a panic with their pro cameras. The D700 totally divided the D3 sales. Who would buy a D3 after a D700 was launched? Practically the same specs for half the size and cost...lol. Nikon was so desperate to grab market share they lost their long term perspective. When the next batch of cameras came out, the D4 wasn't properly shaken down and has had loads of tech issues. The D800 isn't the same genre/spec division of the D700 which has really peaved off a lot of Nikon shooters. Many Pro photographers (whom Nikon were courting) ditch Canon, sold a lot of kit and re-invested in Nikon glass...only to find that the next round Nikon wanted them to buy D4's at a huge price increase over the D800. Most of those pros looked at the D800 and considered it to have inappropriate specs. The very reason for them to consider Nikon (low mp, hish iso and the best AF in the business) were no longer valid and many have quietly gone back to Canon. While the D800 is a very innovative camera, it's not right for the buying market it's in. Nikon needed a true D700 replacement and hasn't delivered. The 5DIII is easily the most versatile DSLR ever made and the new ex 600 rt flash is simply the best flash gun ever made. Nikon have seriously upset their user base and handed the game back to Canon. If I was a Canon to Nikon switcher...I certainly wouldn't trust Nikon again.

I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.

I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.

You must have a bad 5DIII, for my landscapes it's been quite amazing and the appalling Nikon Live view effort puts me off any Nikon DSLR for landscape work. The D800 might have less banding and slightly more DR, but bracketing and digital blending is still required for high contrast imagery. If you are using NR on your 5DIII, then I would suggest your camera is out of spec, are using poor metering technique or you are rushing your landscape work. If you are pulling so much out of the shadows, then there is obviously a meeting issue or you are cutting courners with your bracketing and blending. This image below, I combined the foreground and sky exposures into one image, I had to wait for the sun to kiss the foreground but the sun position was then wrong. So taking the two images created a better photo and one which looks balanced for exposure and has a stong visual feel. The difference between 30+ and 20+ mp is mute here and I get to utilise the camera's low 100 iso virtues because the 2 source images were taken using the camera's optimal performance.

Wait...wait...soooooo what you are saying is that the big megapixel Canon MAY be released a year from now...AND...some of its technology may be based on a camera that has not been announced or released yet?WOW.. This is really exciting news for Canon users! (Sorry...but some sarcasm is mandatory here, I could not hold it in). My 5D III is lookin pretty good here...and was probably a fraction of the cost of these future tech marvels. :-)The files sizes and quality coming out of my 5DIII are great... I will buy some more glass...I guess unless Canon produced a camera with file sizes the same as the 5D III with incredible dynamic range...I will not need another camera for a while.

I'm sporting the 1D-X and the 5D3 was tempting (but some features only a little better and negatives were big for me) but I prefer the series 1 bodies and features. However, I would have loved a big step up in megapixels in my 1D-X.

I'd prefer rebel size. Yes, seriously.

There is no need to feel like a overpacked mountain donkey while hiking / traveling for landscapes. My shoulders says no! .. After all, a high MP body will surely be aimed at landscapers and travelers.

But yeah, it will probably be a 1D-type body, just so that Canon can charge extra for the "pro size".

I prefer 1D type body as more features/speed/responsiveness etc can be packed in.Besides, high MP will be used by many more than just 'landscapers and travelers'. Studio, fashion etc. will benefit too.And all serious landscape photographers use a tripod and if they carrying a tripod, the little extra weight of 1d body is not an issue.Regards..

I have both the 5D mk III and the Nikon D800. The Canon is great at low light, and is a perfect camera for gigs with its real silent shutter. The Nikon has great DR. End of. I shoot mainly landscapes, so I want good low ISO performance. The mk III forces me to use noise reduction at ISO 100 - 400. This is a terminal disease for me, so I don't use the mmiii for very much at all now. The mk III is dead in the water as far as I am concerned because of the noise banding in shadows.

You must have a bad 5DIII, for my landscapes it's been quite amazing and the appalling Nikon Live view effort puts me off any Nikon DSLR for landscape work. The D800 might have less banding and slightly more DR, but bracketing and digital blending is still required for high contrast imagery. If you are using NR on your 5DIII, then I would suggest your camera is out of spec, are using poor metering technique or you are rushing your landscape work. If you are pulling so much out of the shadows, then there is obviously a meeting issue or you are cutting courners with your bracketing and blending. This image below, I combined the foreground and sky exposures into one image, I had to wait for the sun to kiss the foreground but the sun position was then wrong. So taking the two images created a better photo and one which looks balanced for exposure and has a stong visual feel. The difference between 30+ and 20+ mp is mute here and I get to utilise the camera's low 100 iso virtues because the 2 source images were taken using the camera's optimal performance.

I rarely have to use multiple shots with the D800 whereas I often had to with the mk III. In my experience I can also get more detail from the shadows without getting the noise banding. I agree that the Live View is far better on the Canon than on the D800, but then I very rarely use Live View in any case as I still prefer to use the viewfinder. I'll often shoot handheld which is something I do with my medium format 645D also.

My experience:

Canon 5D mkIII Nikon D800

Live view better worse

Silent shooting much better hardly much quieter than normal shooting

Dynamic Range worse Much better

Low ISO noise much worse Much better

Shadow recovery much worse Much better

I'm no fanboi. I judge from my images. The Mk III can take some great images, but the pattern noise killed it for me. That being said, I haven't yet sold all my L glass, so I am keeping my head in. I operate a two camera set up: D800 and the 40 mp Pentax 645D. The resolution isn't the be all and end all. BUt is good to have the ability to print to about the same size with both. The D800 is the best of all three for dynamic range in my experience, but the 645D gives a different feeling. It also doesn't give me the pattern noise that the Canon does. And I'm not the only one reporting that.

Thanks bud, suprisingly....not much snow! Looking out my window today and I'm trying hard to imagine that it's late March....lol!

It's funny that you say that. We are WAY under average snowfall in the DC area this winter too. The overnight forecast called for a possible dusting of snow. I woke up to a very unexpected 4 inches of snow on the ground. I took some quick shots of the woods behind my apartment before heading to work..a pleasant surprise. In keeping with the recent conversation about DR in this thread, I will push a single shot exposure and post to show that even with shadows and snow the Mk III does just fine.

At least we are getting a presumably fairly solid rumour here? .... I have been waiting since before the 5D mkIII for the next generation of sensors, that Nikon / Sony must of had in development 4 years ago. So what have Canon been doing? And I'm quite dismayed about this.

For me its not all about MP, I think 50mp on 35mm might be too much.. for most people and pushing sensor density and lens to limits. I think 40MP with 2 stops more DR and the most important NO banding / noise in shadows at 100-400 would be the optimum combination.

I shoot studio work at lot and this would make a huge difference when dealing with low key subjects plus simply having a more maluable file to push and retouch with. I did a head to head test with my friends D800 the other day as was seriously considering getting one to run alongside my 5D mkIII.

So I hope this is of interest and not too off topic, but for those debating the D800 vs 5D mkIII or MFDB or wanting more MP read on. And when I get time this week I will post a proper review of my tests with samples.

The first thing I found was the D800 has not much more DR in a studio setting with a subject full of smooth tones and some fairly contrasty areas. The D800 is a more natural looking file and much less micro contrast & sharpness compared to canon raws straight out of the box. The actual MP size difference was not that big, nothing that couldnt successfully be upscaled. But the shadow detail had quite a bit less noise, but also had less information in it, it seemed the noise in the canons shadow areas was actually emphasising any subtle details especially on skin texture.

As some other posters correctly said its about what you do with the file and how you shoot to capture the exposure. In canons case overexpose TTR and get a cleaner file plus you can pull back the highlights slightly more than the D800.But if you do underexpose or have to pull shadow up a lot then the D800 wins hands down.

Surprisingly in my tests I compared my experience of Hasselblad H3DII-39 and Phase one P30+ image quality and the D800 is better than the Hasselblad sensor -cleaner and can be pushed more, although it is not as bitingly sharp but that can easily be added later. And the P30 is a harder more processed looking file similar to the canon but can be pushed a lot but is also very smooth at the same time.

But what I did find was the most important factor - LENS, I only had access to the nikon 24-70 and tested it against the canon 24-105 L and 50mm 1.4 and both the canon lens appeared to be sharper. I believe 50 % was due to sharper lens and 50% due to the way the canon raw files are sharper to begin with before any sharpening can be applied in processing. Also because of the slightly smaller file size the canon images looked sharper overall which is good news for most uses up to 24" prints I would imagine.

Then the next day I tested out the 35L , 50L and 85L and I was very surprised by the look from these lens, not quite enough is written about this in reviews that concentrate on sharpness , CA, vignetting and bokeh. Bokeh is one thing but the way these lenses smoothly draw the image and combined with the punchy raw characteristics the camera it was amazingly similar to the Hasselblad primes with a Phase One back which is very impressive indeed.

So after a lot of studying files and forums about the D800 then testing it myself I ended up with the surprise conclusion to invest more into Canon-specifically the main 3 primes I don't have yet, 35L (though may try the sigma as well) 50L and 85L as this will have the nicest and biggest impact on the look and feel of my images. And beyond that i really do hope canon do produce a sensor with as clean shadows as the D800 in the next year or I will be really sad to have to look to alternatives again.

However I am slightly scared that they will produce a monster MP 50+ with less than 1 stop better DR and more noise reduction to keep shadow noise at bay rather than concentrating on a purely better sensor in terms of DR, tonal gradation and shadow noise/ banding.

One last word is please people and Canon stop this hi-iso driven quest, very rarely do most people need to shoot over 6400 and how many truly beautiful images have been made at stupidly high ISOs. It's ruining photography for a lot I believe compared to few good snaps you might be able to get and marvel about how dark it was! When I saw a post recently about them demoing a video sensor that can shoot in near darkness I wailled and cursed why are their R&D so obsessed with that and video .. remember proper photographers that like to use light, studio flash and shoot mostly at 100iso for beautiful clean stunning professional results!

Just a small question, and excuse me if i seem a little illeducated about a high MP sensors as i'm only a novice, but who is it aimed at? Are we looking at fashion pros producing life size posters / billboards and that type of things? My 18MP camera can print A3 at 300dpi so I'm assuming you all produce huge prints for one thing or another?